WASHINGTON — Fifty members of the Senate have signed a letter to the N.F.L. to urge its leadership to press the Washington Redskins to change the team name in the aftermath of tough sanctions against the owner of the Los Angeles Clippers for racially charged comments.

The position embraced by half of the Senate, and the willingness of the lawmakers to sign a formal request to Commissioner Roger Goodell, escalated the fight over the name and represented an effort to put increasing pressure on the league, which receives a federal tax break, and the ownership of the team.

“The N.F.L. can no longer ignore this and perpetuate the use of this name as anything but what it is: a racial slur,” said the letter, which was circulated by Senator Maria Cantwell, Democrat of Washington, and endorsed by Senator Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, the majority leader. “We urge the N.F.L. to formally support a name change for the Washington football team.”

Cantwell said that “we are going to find out if the N.F.L. can act against this kind of discrimination as quickly as the N.B.A. did.” She said she considered the Senate letter an important milestone.

“Listen, it is hard to get 50 people in this place to agree on anything,” she said.

Reid has made the push for the name change a top interest. He said in an interview that he could not understand the league’s resisting the senators on the name change given other pressing disputes it was navigating, including head injuries and the health of former players.

“I have 22 tribal organizations in Nevada,” Reid said. “They are not mascots. They are human beings. And this term Redskins is offensive to them.”

All but five Senate Democrats — Mark Warner and Tim Kaine of Virginia, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Joe Donnelly of Indiana and Mark Pryor of Arkansas — signed the letter. It was not circulated among Republicans.

N.F.L. officials said they had not received the letter. But a league spokesman, Brian McCarthy, provided a statement saying the league “has long demonstrated a commitment to progressive leadership on issues of diversity and inclusion, both on and off the field.”

“The intent of the team’s name has always been to present a strong, positive and respectful image,” the statement said. “The name is not used by the team or the N.F.L. in any other context, though we respect those that view it differently.”

(…)

The senators said the quick action the N.B.A. took against Donald Sterling, the owner of the Clippers, should be an example to the N.F.L.

“We urge you and the National Football League to send the same clear message as the N.B.A. did: that racism and bigotry have no place in professional sports,” the letter said.

As I’ve noted before, the issue of the alleged offensiveness of the Redskins name, and the calls on ownership to change the name, or on the N.F.L. to force a name change, is one that has reared its head several times in the past. The usual course of events has been that the controversy lasts for awhile, sometimes as long as a couple of years or more, while ownership resists calls for change and the league generally demurs on the subject. The most recent push started a few years ago and has included, among things, an ongoing effort to deny the team protection under the Trademark Law because of the “offensiveness” of the name. When that effort petered out, a group of Congressmen introduced a bill that would accomplish the same thing, that bill has gone nowhere in no small part because the prospect of Congress stripping a property right from an entity in this manner would , arguably, be unconstitutional. Outside of the political sphere, several sports writers and non-sports publications have instituted the rather silly policy of never again referring to the team by its name. Additionally, both the league and team ownership have taken the steps of meeting with representatives of groups opposed to the use of the Redskins name, although nothing has come of any of those discussions.

Like Jack Kent Cooke before him, Redskins owner Daniel Snyder has made it clear that he has no intention of ever changing the team’s name. The N.F.L., meanwhile, has generally taken a non-committal position on the issue, taking pains not to offend the people who might find the Redskins name offensive but also not taking a position against the name that most likely would not be supported by the team owners that actually control the league. Given that polling has found that upwards of seven in ten Americans do not believe that a name change is necessary, it isn’t at all surprising that they would take this position. If the numbers were reversed and Snyder and the league were looking at the (unlikely) possibility of suffering in the pocketbook because of the Redskins name, then there would be much more likelihood of a name change. Indeed, as many people have pointed out, Snyder would likely make out fairly well from a name change as people rush out to replace their Redskins memorabilia with products adorned with the new team name. Of course, at the same time, all of that Redskins gear would suddenly become more valuable in the collectibles market. The reason they aren’t acting isn’t because Dan Snyder and Roger Goodell hate Native Americans or want to insult them, it’s because there is no good business reason for them to do so. No amount of pressuring from United States Senators is going to change that unless and until public opinion changes.

This is where the analogy to the Donald Sterling situation fails completely. While that story was still breaking, Matt Bernius noted that Frank DeFord had drawn the analogy between Sterling’s racist comments and the Redskins, but there is a crucial difference that DeFord ignored. In the Sterling example, the public reaction to his comments was swift, immediate, and overwhelmingly negative. More importantly, Sterling’s comments caused an immediate uproar among the NBA’a players and happened just as the league’s playoffs were beginning. Sponsors responded by disassociating themselves from the Clippers and the NBA. In other words, within days it became apparent that Sterling’s continued association with the NBA would threaten the league as a whole unless action was taken. There’s nothing similar happening with regard to the Redskins. Polls don’t show any public outcry about the name, and players have not spoken out about the matter. To the extent they have, they’ve been largely supportive of the name, such as the comments that Redskins Quaterback Robert Griffin III has made on the matter. Unless that changes, the NFL is not going to act and, quite honestly, I don’t see any reason why they should.

On a final note, I would think that members of the United States Senate would better use their time taking care of the things the Constitution charges them with taking care of rather than trying to publicly shame a private business like this. If the Redskins want to change their name, and maybe someday they will, it should be their choice, not because a bunch of Senators pressured them into doing it.

About Doug MataconisDoug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May, 2010 and also writes at Below The Beltway.
Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

If the Redskins want to change their name, and maybe someday they will, it should be their choice, not because a bunch of Senators pressured them into doing it.

Similarly, if restaurant owners in the Jim Crow South wanted to serve African-American customers, then that should have been their choice, not because a bunch of Senators passed a civil rights bill forcing them into doing it….

On a final note, I would think that members of the United States Senate would better use their time taking care of the things the Constitution charges them with taking care of rather than trying to publicly shame a private business like this.

One might think they have better things to do. But since all we’re talking about is a few minutes of time from a do-nothing anyway Congress, and since all we’re talking about is the name of a football team, one would be hard out to care.

So there should be no problem if the owner of a sports team wants to name his franchise the Yellowskins, the Blackskins, the Whiteskins, etc…., after all, any offense about those names would only be alleged…

“More importantly, Sterling’s comments caused an immediate uproar among the NBA’a players and happened just as the league’s playoffs were beginning. Sponsors responded by disassociating themselves from the Clippers and the NBA. In other words, within days it became apparent that Sterling’s continued association with the NBA would threaten the league as a whole unless action was taken. There’s nothing similar happening with regard to the Redskins. Polls don’t show any public outcry about the name, and players have not spoken out about the matter.”

So, whether something is popular or not is the most important issue in determining whether something is permitted to be done to harm a small minority. I’m sure you support applying this rule to confiscatory taxes on billionaires as well, right Doug?

Woud Doug ever have the nerve to walk up to an actual American Indian and say “hey, Redskin”? Would he ever describe an actual American Indian to someone else as a “Redskin”?

Answer: no. He’d chicken out, because he knows that his listeners would be offended. He’s perfectly well aware that there’s nothing “alleged” about the offensiveness of the name but is trying to weasel out of that by lying.

As I’ve noted before, the issue of the alleged offensiveness of the Redskins name, and the calls on ownership to change the name, or on the N.F.L. to force a name change, is one that has reared its head several times in the past.

Something tells me that this test of wills will end in….

A new name for the Washington Redskins. At this point, the only question is whether the name change will be voluntary or not.

@James Pearce: I tend to agree that it’s inevitable at this point. We’re all agreed that nobody starting a professional sports team—or a T-ball team, or rec league team—today would give it the nickname “Redskins.” The only real argument in favor is “it’s always been called that.”

If we were discussing the Kansas City Pickaninnies, the Biloxi Spearchuckers, the Tucson Chinamen, or the El Paso Wetbacks would you still be talking about their “alleged” offensiveness?

Hiding behind “alleged” in a case like this is just authorial cowardice. Either call it what it is – an offensive ethnic slur, or, if you don’t think it’s offensive, have the courage of your convictions and say so.

I don’t know if the letter and shaming is going to effect change but they’re worth doing for the reasons Rafer and Ken note. The news is that Dems are getting much better at trolling the reactionaries.

@James Joyner: The other argument in favor of keeping the name is that the fans can keep using all their old Redskins tee shirts, beer mugs, and undershorts. I’d have thought Snyder would like the idea of forcing his fans to buy all new licensed logo stuff. And he could squirrel away the team store’s current inventory for the rarity value it should have in twenty years.

On a final note, I would think that members of the United States Senate would better use their time taking care of the things the Constitution charges them with taking care of rather than trying to publicly shame a private business like this.

@An Interested Party: Let me say this, as I have said before.
A few years ago the local school board took it upon themselves to change my former high school name, evidently to please a handful of people, disregarding the fact that the name (Braves) was chosen as a tribute to the courage, skills, heritage, and athleticism of the American Indian. This was done without asking the students and former students what their opinion was: arrogance at its highest. Then the taxpsyers had to foot the bill of several thousand dollars to change signs, billboards, emblems, and other school insignia.
Have these senators asked the Redskin players and former players (greatest players in NFL history) for their opinion? How about the fans and season ticket owners ? They are the ones who carry the NFL.
Where will this stop? There are now these so-called animal rights people who do not want teams named after animals (“degrading, trivializing”). So then what? Colors? Minerals? Plants? How about the Seven Dwarves or Greek myth creatures? Somebody will always complain about something.
My personal choice would be “Warriors” . Fits right in to the Washington fight song.
And how about the statue on top of the Capitol?
It is a dangerous precedent for Congress to tell someone what they can name something. Next they will tell people what they can name their dog.
Enough of this stuff of a few people stirring things up to get their way.
Everyone that I have heard on the radio thinks it is ridiculous. Congress has other things they need to worry about.

Thank God the senate has fixed those income inequality issues, ended America’s longest war in Afghanistan and even solved those pesky problems at the Veteran’s Administration that they have time to dwell on the really tough problems that crop up in America. It’s shit like this that makes voters totally disgusted with Washington politicians.

@gVOR08: I don´t like Snyder, but I don´t think that he could stand the backlash from the fans. Anyway, I think that they should find a tribe to license the name: they could bring real Amerindians to their games, it would be fan.

@James Pearce: And winning should be the priority. I would accept any name, including Washington Nerds, if they won the Super Bowl. Mr. Snyder needs to get some better talent.
And how many of these senators actually go to the games and support the team?

@mantis: “Garryowens”: one of the greatest military songs in US history. Imagine seeing General Custer and the 7th on the parade ground to that tune. Priceless.
See “They Died With Their Boots Own”; movie classic with Errol Flynn as General Custer.

Oh, I know. I was using it as kind of a taunt, though it doesn’t really work. But I was thinking of the battleground, not the parade ground. Didn’t turn out all that well for Custer and the 7th. They Died With Their Boots On is not bad, but very historically inaccurate.

how is it “discrimination” anyway? are they denying any players a chance to lose with them because of their race? it’s just fluff for the perpetually angry crowd, look inwards kids.
if so many in dc were disgusted, maybe the place wouldn’t be sold out every game for the next forever?

@CB: Probably not. I don’t understand how any one could consider “Braves” to be offensive, as in the case of our high school. The people who chose it years ago as a tribute to the courage, culture, values, contributions, and athleticism of the Native Americans would be aghast and offended that someone would consider that offensive.
But Congress is overstepping in trying to interfere in this.

On a final note, I would think that members of the United States Senate would better use their time taking care of the things the Constitution charges them with taking care of rather than trying to publicly shame a private business like this.

And once again Doug gets his panties in a bunch over some politicians expressing what in any other world would be a private opinion. “Oh, but they did it on Senatorial Letterhead!” Uhhhh gee, they are Senators!

If it bothers them so much, then why don’t these millionaire Democrats pool their money and buy the team to rename it?

Oh, and apparently no one else bothered to actually look at the letter: only 49 Senators signed it, not 50. 48 Democrats and Bernie Sanders.

When I looked at the letter, I noticed it had two columns of names, but one was shorter than the other — which should not happen if there were 50 names. So I started counting, and Sanders’ name jumped out as another anomaly. And the article says that it wasn’t circulated among the entire Senate, just the Democrats.

Christ, you’d think that the “real journalists” could at least learn to count…

speaking of “racist” comments- i was watching tv at some bar last week and saw a wendy’s commercial promoting some italian sandwich- the cute red head say’s “no wonder italians talk with their hands” at the end, we’ve come pretty far for that to get past any scrutiny- i believe!

All but five Senate Democrats — Mark Warner and Tim Kaine of Virginia, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Joe Donnelly of Indiana and Mark Pryor of Arkansas — signed the letter. It was not circulated among Republicans.

While I agree the name is offensive, I don’t think every offensive thing on the planet requires change. “Offensive” and “harmful” are two different things, and I don’t see (or haven’t been exposed to) how this name is harming people. Hell, there’s still seven Lynchburgs in the continental United States, where’s the popular movement to get those towns to change their incredibly more offensive name?

That said, “Washington Warriors.” Alliterative. Fits in the fight song. Merchandise revenue. Social bonus for appealing to the better nature of the football crowd. How the hell is this name still around? Sure, Congress is “interfering” (writing a letter is interference?) in a private business decision, but it’s definitely the kind of interfering the guy trying to tell his friend he’s too drunk to drive is doing.

“Hell, there’s still seven Lynchburgs in the continental United States, where’s the popular movement to get those towns to change their incredibly more offensive name?”

How many of them were named for a person whose last name was Lynch? It’s not exactly an uncommon name.

And dictionary.com cites the World English Dictionary saying the verb “lynch” was likely a case of applying someone’s name to an action, as it gives as the etymology “[probably after Charles Lynch (1736--96), Virginia justice of the peace, who presided over extralegal trials of Tories during the American War of Independence]“

@Moosebreath: Point taken. Lynchburg, Virginia is specifically named after John Lynch. But that brings us back to squaring off between the intentions behind the names (as Tyrell points out with his high school example) and perceived offensiveness of them.

The Redskins are supposedly named in homage to their coach at the time, an interesting figure himself who might have been (and probably was) faking Sioux heritage.

As I’ve noted before, the issue of the alleged offensiveness of the Redskins name, and the calls on ownership to change the name, or on the N.F.L. to force a name change, is one that has reared its head several times in the past.

If, by way of example, Notre Dame’s name was “The Drunken Fighting Irish,” with the school logo being a picture of a drunk Irishman in the gutter passed out, I’m guessing many people might allege that this would be offensive.

Dan Snyder should acknowledge the obvious (that the name is now an anachronism, a slur, and an embarrassment) and publicly say that he will take action to change the team name, and hold a contest asking fans to suggest a new name, with the winner receiving team memorabilia, and so forth. Involve DC football fans and make the change. I think he would create a lot of favorable publicity for himself (for a change) and the team.

It’s becoming more and more apparent what a major priority to the Democratic party: they need to control what others do with their property. They don’t want to own the property, as that would involve actual responsibility; they just want to control it, make the actual owners live up to the Democrats’ standards on their own dime.

@al-Ameda: Yes, it is a lot like the Republican obsession with controlling women’s reproductive health choices and decisions

Quite a few of us have a very simple position: do what you want, just don’t ask us to support it — verbally or financially. But that’s now considered a hate crime, or whatever you’re currently calling the greatest sin under liberalism.

Which brings me back to my point: you want to use our property to support your ideals. And hate us for wanting to keep our property to ourselves.

Which brings me back to my point: you want to use our property to support your ideals. And hate us for wanting to keep our property to ourselves.

Simply put, I do not consider women to be the property of men generally, nor of white male legislators specifically, and I prefer to let women make their own health care and reproductive health choices.

Frankly, I’m not sure how that squares with your idea that I’m trying to take your property.

@al-Ameda: Nobody was trying to deny Sandra Fluke her birth control. (Personally, I’m in favor of her never reproducing, but that’s just me.) I just didn’t think that her use or non-use of birth control should be a public issue, but she insisted it was by demanding that other people pay for it.

This is where you insist that a right you can’t afford to exercise is a right you’ve been denied, so I’ll preemptively answer and ask you if you can buy me a gun and a printing press, so I can exercise my 1st and 2nd Amendment rights that I’m currently denied.

I rather liked Jeff Goldstein’s suggestion for renaming the team: the “Washington Light Skinned blacks who don’t speak with a Negro dialect unless they want to” or the “Washington Clean and articulate mostly black men.”

Nobody was trying to deny Sandra Fluke her birth control. (Personally, I’m in favor of her never reproducing, but that’s just me.) I just didn’t think that her use or non-use of birth control should be a public issue, but she insisted it was by demanding that other people pay for it.

Republicans don’t seem to have a problem with insurance policies (which people pay for, they’re not free, as many Republicans seem to believe) that pay for Viagra or Cialis prescriptions for 50-60 year old men, which enables them to get their 25 year girlfriends pregnant, but have a problem with insurance policies that cover birth control (which ultimately reduces the number of unwanted births or demand for abortions).

By the way, Fluke called for insurance coverage of birth control because it was and is related to women’s reproductive health, not because (as Rush was trying to tell conservative men) she wanted someone to pay for her sex life. Men get coverage of ED drugs because it (ED) is considered medical treatment, and not an endorsement of sexual activity (outside marriage) between older men and younger women.

Then perhaps Ms. Fluke should have gone to school somewhere else, instead of explicitly choosing a Catholic university that explicitly says that it abides by and promotes Catholic beliefs.

“abides by and promotes Catholic beliefs”
You mean like looking the other way while millions of American and European Catholic women use artificial birth control, a practice that is contrary to the doctrinal teaching of The Church?